Unified Theory Visual Model Draft ver.9

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu

 

Please explain your statement Energy Density as well as Material Density.

energy density is a hypothetical measurement of the compression of space, represented by current standards as atomic diameter vs. atomic mass. our current model of measuring energy pressure/density is limited to observations of the material manifestations, (particles/waves, atoms etc.) or 'material density' created by this compression, at this time. what we can tell from the current model is that atomic structure appears to be an harmonic pattern (periodic table).

Which Material and since Energy is either Electrons, Photons or Kinetic Transfer...and kinetic Transfer includes Particle Bombardment....I am not seeing where this applies to the UFT.

the word 'material' is just a way to differentiate between the scale of energy and the scale of matter. the argument made by this model is that energy is not limited to the 'visually/mathematically descriptive models' of electrons, photons and kinetic transfer, rather these effects are the 'material' traces/byproducts of the interaction of 'vibrational energy density' shells, not unlike lightning being the byproduct of energy transfer between shells of spinning energy, it can be described as electricity but only at the moment of energy transference between pressure shells, when the 'electrons' become apparent, i.e. scale.

Also as far as Material...how are you quantifying Density as it applies to the Quantum?

i am not attempting to conclusively quantify the density of the hypothetical field of quantum energy, i am only suggesting an alternative approach to investigating its behaviour, rather than from the traditional standpoint of charge, this model suggests interpreting the field from the basis of spin, as polarisation is a characteristic of spin, not charge.

Most people do not realize that when I slam my fist down on a table...the Materials and Atoms Nucleuses of that material never actually comes in contact with one another. The Electron Orbits prevent any particle of Mass from touching as the Electrons Orbits of the Atoms nucleus repel one anothers Electron Orbits and thus Protons and Netrons never collide unless we are using a Particle Accellerator or using Fusion or Fission.

the model does not dispute this.

The Density of a Material in conventional sense is which ever Element has a Higher Relative Mass....will be denser based on temp. as well as in the case of Gases...temp and pressure. There is also things like Bucky Balls that may not have the density Gold Has but are Structuraly Perfect and are virtually indestructable in their Matrix.

the model does not dispute this either.

Still...I do not see how this relates to the UFT as how does this relate to the Quantum aspect?
Split Infinity

i suggest you read through it again and let it digest. i offer the example of the human brain as an example of 'quantum energy density' far greater than its physical mass. the workings of the brain can only be explained so far by the chemical interactions and electrical impulses, but this does not explain how it came to be on a subatomic level. if it is the result of 'quantum energy compression' over "time", as this model suggests, then the chemical interactions we can observe are only the byproduct of far more subtle interactions of energy/force/quantum stuff, which can only become more complex/energy dense over time.

the argument this model makes is that multiple universes are not necessary for the creation nor behaviour of these quantum particles, they are a byproduct of forces similar to those which drive larger, stable energy structures, only on a much smaller scale. if you scale an ant up to size of a human, it wouldn't still be able to carry several times its own body weight, in fact its legs would buckle from its body weight alone. in a similar fashion, if you scale down the known forces of interacting energy pressures, the results will differ according to relative scale of observation.

the atom proposed in this model would, in theory, comfortably fill the shoes of our current atomic model, only without the restrictions implied by a model dominated by charge rather than spin.

Originally posted by mzungu


you point out that e.u. theory "acknowledges that the forces that really create and move the universe are 'ethereal' in nature: magnetic/electric/wave/field thingy, not "particle exchange". this is a contradiction of terms and if this were so it wouldn't be electric universe theory. e.u. theory, from the little i have read, (again no scientific papers exist on the subject), is not conclusive.

I am not sure i get what you mean here, but i am listening, if you care to explain a bit more.

the concept of positive and negative prevades perspective, not just on the sub-atomic or electromagnetic levels, but also the real life world views held by an individual. it boils down to the idea of wrong and right being definitive states of being, when in my model such states are only representative of patterns of energy transfer and vibration. i.e. there is no wrong/right/up/down/left/right/positive/negative without the reference point of one to the other. you can't be right if there is no wrong, there cannot be a positive force without a negative etc.

/agree

if you want to give this theory a tag line or define as a certain 'type' of theory, then many labels may fit; "aether theory", "unified field theory", even "acoustical resonance theory" could be applied to the model, with varying degrees of relativity. at the end of the day though, such labels only create divisions in understanding, depending on one's preconceptions.

perhaps, but names give shape to ideas and helps us to organize them in our minds.

I am not sure i get what you mean here, but i am listening, if you care to explain a bit more.

i only meant that the contradictory stance electric universe theory takes of the universe being governed by electrical forces only but also by other forces at the same time. it appears to be a self-perpetuating circular argument, from the little i can find on the subject.

perhaps, but names give shape to ideas and helps us to organize them in our minds.

exactly, which is why one must very careful about which words one chooses to use =)

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

[Since we have this HUGE GAPING HOLE in our model that is Quantum Mechanics.

Without getting in to the complexities inherent in the detailed description of quantum behavior, nor the 'weirdness' and 'magik' that many ascribe to 'quantum physics', at it's most basic level, "Quantum Mechanics" acknowledges that at some small scale, forces and energies are no longer 'smooth'. That these forces and energies change in 'steps' or 'quantum' levels.

This fact was particularly astonishing to mathematicians and natural philosophers who had observed the 'macro' world changing continuously, without 'steps'. In fact the calculus *depends* upon a smooth function to be valid: they could no longer use their favorite descriptive tool...

But i see 'quantum' behavior in many places: the shifting of acoustic sand patterns, step wise non linearity in specific heats, the sort of 'locking' that occurs when two vibrating bodies come in to resonance and the 'steps' associated with each transition in to and out of high order frequencies.

i suspect that what is less correct are the two pervading assumptions in modern science: over all homogeneity and 'continuous' functions being the 'normal' state of things.

Originally posted by mzungu
this model does not agree with the assumption that mass has to be calculated by the number of protons and neutrons, i thought i had made that clear...

As far as i know, the *only* real definition that we have for mass is a precisely carved block of metal.

Originally posted by galactix

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

[Since we have this HUGE GAPING HOLE in our model that is Quantum Mechanics.

Without getting in to the complexities inherent in the detailed description of quantum behavior, nor the 'weirdness' and 'magik' that many ascribe to 'quantum physics', at it's most basic level, "Quantum Mechanics" acknowledges that at some small scale, forces and energies are no longer 'smooth'. That these forces and energies change in 'steps' or 'quantum' levels.

This fact was particularly astonishing to mathematicians and natural philosophers who had observed the 'macro' world changing continuously, without 'steps'. In fact the calculus *depends* upon a smooth function to be valid: they could no longer use their favorite descriptive tool...

But i see 'quantum' behavior in many places: the shifting of acoustic sand patterns, step wise non linearity in specific heats, the sort of 'locking' that occurs when two vibrating bodies come in to resonance and the 'steps' associated with each transition in to and out of high order frequencies.

i suspect that what is less correct are the two pervading assumptions in modern science: over all homogeneity and 'continuous' functions being the 'normal' state of things.

exactly.

the view of this model is that although we view the macro-world changing continuously, this is not actually the case. much like video footage of still images appears to be fluid motion to our eyes, the interactions we can see and patterns we can visualise are based on our brain's ability to distinguish and interpret the frequency of wave/particle pattern. this ability evolves over time as it (literally) 'sucks in' and 'analyses' the surrounding space and the patterns it generates and puts them together piece by piece.

what it does with the information and how it assembles it is the product of its position on the spiral of patterned energy density.

Originally posted by mzungu

exactly, which is why one must very careful about which words one chooses to use =)

nice. i liked the short segment.

When she was speaking of the act of saying "i love you", talking about the word as a punctuated collection of vibrations leaving her, travelling thru air then entering the other further causing a series of interactions that result in (sometimes) understanding but almost always "feelings".

The description sound so 'particle' like to me... lol: the words as carrier for the 'idea' of love.

My description of the same event would be different. I see the act of vocalization a necessary *expression* of the idea that is a feeling. The moment one does say or will say (assuming a genuine interaction , of course) "i love u" is the result of a 'pressure' a sort of... gradient of emotion. The 'wave top' that appears as an 'electron' leaps off of one surface on to another because a field gradient exists: field, then energy flow.

emotion... then verbalization: the word is a peak in the energy exchange illuminating the reality of the connection.

love is a pathway

reply to post by galactix

nice. i liked the short segment.

When she was speaking of the act of saying "i love you", talking about the word as a punctuated collection of vibrations leaving her, travelling thru air then entering the other further causing a series of interactions that result in (sometimes) understanding but almost always "feelings".

The description sound so 'particle' like to me... lol: the words as carrier for the 'idea' of love.

My description of the same event would be different. I see the act of vocalization a necessary *expression* of the idea that is a feeling. The moment one does say or will say (assuming a genuine interaction , of course) "i love u" is the result of a 'pressure' a sort of... gradient of emotion. The 'wave top' that appears as an 'electron' leaps off of one surface on to another because a field gradient exists: field, then energy flow.

emotion... then verbalization: the word is a peak in the energy exchange illuminating the reality of the connection.

love is a pathway

what i like about this model is that it not only allows for scientific explanation but also real-life human experiential results, which science cannot currently measure.

i'd like to correct your wording if i may; "love is the pathway." scientifically explainable love.

sounds a bit like the words of jesus, buddha, krishna, ghandi et al, no?

what if the polarisation effect of vibrating matter is a scientific measurement of love/hate? wouldn't it make sense, if a person's ability to accept/understand/love something is dependant on their ability to resonate/compress at a compatible frequency? a kind of 'particle empathy'?

what kind of implications could we draw?

reply to post by mzungu

Your analogy of scaling an Ant to Human Size is not a logical nor math based supposition that can be used in this instance as you cannot use comparitive size to affirm your concept.

The proper way to scale an Ant to a Human for the purpose of example...and by the way...when done properly it does NOT help your arguement or concept...is to use COMPARATIVE MASS. If an Ant is given the same MASS as a HUMAN then the ANT would be much LARGER in Cubic Volume than a Human.

When taking this into account...an Ant with the same Mass as a Human Being....would be not only Greater in SIZE but also it's legs would be also larger and structurely sound to be easily able to allow the Ant to move and also be able to pick up heavy objects than itself just as it does when it is small. However...since an ANT does not have LUNGS and absorbs Air through tiny and multiple in number...BREATHING HOLES around the body...an Ant could never exist to be of this mass as LUNGS are a necessity for growth of an animal that is larger than an Area about equal to the size of a Childs Hand.

This is similar to the concept that the caloric requirements as well as the amount of Oxygen required for an animal is determined by the metabolizm as well as how active the animal is as well as how much mass the animals body has as all of these factors determine the structure of Air Recieving Lungs or Absorbtion Ducts.

So if an Ant was the same size as a Human Being as well as the same Mass....then...YES...it's legs could not hold up its body. But if an Ant had the same Mass of a Human...it would be MUCH LARGER in size thus it's bodies weight would be spread out over a greater area of this Ants larger Legs and what passes for feet. In that way...it would be able to perform the same acts as a small Ant could do....but it would need LUNGS in order to achieve this as the smaller an animal is....the greater the ratio of the Size of an Oxygen Molecule...02....is to the body....the Greater the size of an animal...then the Lesser the ratio of an 02 Molecule is in size to the animal. This means that Large Animals need a much Higher in Numerical Quantity of 02 Molecules to be able to properly Oxygenate their Blood....as Small Animals need a much lower Numerical Quantity of 02 Molecules to Oxygenate their Blood or Cells as even though they are as in the case of an Ant...Highly Active....they have a Body that has a Much Lower Density Ratio of that of a Human. Small Body with a Low Cellular Density means less cells to Oxygenate. More Cells in a Larger Body that is of a High Cellular Density thus many more cells...means not only does it need much more Oxygen by Ratio to the Less Dense Cellular Animal that is smaller but it needs a way to bring in Air in greater quantities as well as distribute this airs Oxygen through out the Body via Lungs that transfer the oxygen to a Circulatory System that runs throughout the body.

So you cannot use the ANT ANALOGY to provide an example to what you propose. Split Infinity

Originally posted by mzungu


what if love/hate is just the polarisation effect of vibrating matter?

i think it is the other way around: polarization being an effect.

entropy does imply direction

reply to post by SplitInfinity

The proper way to scale an Ant to a Human for the purpose of example...and by the way...when done properly it does NOT help your arguement or concept...is to use COMPARATIVE MASS. If an Ant is given the same MASS as a HUMAN then the ANT would be much LARGER in Cubic Volume than a Human.

When taking this into account...an Ant with the same Mass as a Human Being....would be not only Greater in SIZE but also it's legs would be also larger and structurely sound to be easily able to allow the Ant to move and also be able to pick up heavy objects than itself just as it does when it is small. However...since an ANT does not have LUNGS and absorbs Air through tiny and multiple in number...BREATHING HOLES around the body...an Ant could never exist to be of this mass as LUNGS are a necessity for growth of an animal that is larger than an Area about equal to the size of a Childs Hand.

you missed the point of the illustration. an ant of that size could not exist in relation to human scale because the forces that created them act differently according to scale. the ants' pattern structure has evolved breathing holes in their physical bodies as opposed to lungs because at the level of pattern interaction of their scale, it is the most energy efficient configuration. the breathing holes didn't originate in another universe just because they wouldn't work for us.

Originally posted by galactix

Originally posted by mzungu


what if love/hate is just the polarisation effect of vibrating matter?

i think it is the other way around: polarization being an effect.

entropy does imply direction

good point, that's what i meant to say, got it the wrong way around, [fixed now].

entropy might be considered a byproduct of lag, within this model, it is something that still troubles me.

reply to post by mzungu

I did not miss the point. You stated and I quote....

the argument this model makes is that multiple universes are not necessary for the creation nor behaviour of these quantum particles, they are a byproduct of forces similar to those which drive larger, stable energy structures, only on a much smaller scale. if you scale an ant up to size of a human, it wouldn't still be able to carry several times its own body weight, in fact its legs would buckle from its body weight alone. in a similar fashion, if you scale down the known forces of interacting energy pressures, the results will differ according to relative scale of observation

You were using an incorrect assumption and you used an impossible analogy to describe your stated model and in your last line of what I quoted you saying....I disproved this by describing in my post what the reality of a true scaled Mass of an Ant to the Mass of a Human in that the ratio does not describe or show or prove any difference in interacting of supposed energy pressures that will cause a differing result using the proper Analogy Ratio. The Ant would be Larger in Area if scaled to a Humans Mass but it would still be able to act as it could if it was tiny as long as the ratio is dierected to Mass. Size Ratios will give you no logical analogy and thus you have to throw out that analogy. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by mzungu

 

I did not miss the point. You stated and I quote....

the argument this model makes is that multiple universes are not necessary for the creation nor behaviour of these quantum particles, they are a byproduct of forces similar to those which drive larger, stable energy structures, only on a much smaller scale. if you scale an ant up to size of a human, it wouldn't still be able to carry several times its own body weight, in fact its legs would buckle from its body weight alone. in a similar fashion, if you scale down the known forces of interacting energy pressures, the results will differ according to relative scale of observation

You were using an incorrect assumption and you used an impossible analogy to describe your stated model and in your last line of what I quoted you saying....I disproved this by describing in my post what the reality of a true scaled Mass of an Ant to the Mass of a Human in that the ratio does not describe or show or prove any difference in interacting of supposed energy pressures that will cause a differing result using the proper Analogy Ratio.

you're still not entertaining the proposition of different levels of measurable 'energy density', which are not so much separate from 'material density' as they are the cause of it, the only difference between them is the range of measurable scale.

The Ant would be Larger in Area if scaled to a Humans Mass but it would still be able to act as it could if it was tiny as long as the ratio is dierected to Mass. Size Ratios will give you no logical analogy and thus you have to throw out that analogy. Split Infinity

my point is that an ant cannot be scaled up, much like the forces that govern quantum particles cannot be scaled up to fit accepted atomic behaviour. when i talk about 'scaling', i'm not talking about taking this bit of mass and comparing its density to that bit of mass, and performing mathematical calculations. i'm talking about a fundamental shift in perspective. if the behaviour of compressed/patterned energy/flux/ether propagates spinning particles which trap energy with vibrational shells that pull the surrounding space into themselves through a process of energy conversion/absorption/emission, then it makes sense that at different levels of density it will affect different levels of "measurable" mass.

thus, the concentration of flux that is the human mind, for instance, pulls the surrounding space into layer upon layer of vibrational energy shells, which make up the atoms we can model and the forces we can feel, our very bodies themselves. the same thing happens on all levels, both currently measurable/recognisable and not, with varying degrees of complexity, depending on the "pre-existing" patterned structure the atom/wave/particle/consciousness is 'born' into.

what i'm trying to get across is if you scaled an ant up it would no longer be an ant, it would have to become a different sort of lifeform entirely, (lungs/physical mass/density/purpose etc.)

the size/mass/density/composition of a material lifeform (body), is directly relate-able to it's harmonic/vibrational energy requirement for sustained existence. i suggest in future the study of matter though the eyes of spin rather than charge will lead to the discovery of a formula/algorithm of propagating torsion in space.

[ah damn, double post]

it may be useful at this 'point in time' to make an attempt of connecting the nature of the evolution of matter as a similar process of cause and effect to that of our own evolution, for the assistance of understanding. i would like to thank professor eamonn healy for this concise, easily understandable (if a bit "over-energetic", ha), and easily relate-able explanation. if you can make the connection between our own behaviour and the behaviour of other energy constructions (both "conscious" and "un(sub?)conscious"), you're already there.

i promise i'm not going to ramble on, but i want to try and wrap up the theory in some form of everyday, relateable terms for people who might have difficulty in understanding it from a scientific viewpoint.

we, as humans, enjoy playing with stuff. when you do something, stuff happens, and outcomes can sometimes be cool and exciting, as well as occasionally sad or even scary, once in a while seemingly impossible, depending what influences your perspective. the fact that these things happen happens anyway and often we think that there is nothing we can do to control it.

but that is not true. we can and do control everything we can see, beyond what our 'material' senses, (atomic/electric/chemical) can perceive. kicking a ball about is fun, for instance. we enjoy it so much that we made balls to kick. we invented complex games with rules and points and strategies all based around how much damn satisfying it is to kick a ball. we even invented different shape/sized balls that bounce in different directions and different speeds to make it even more fun.

from the perspective of the ball, we hate it. the invention of the rubber sphere has got to be the most sadistic invention in the history of the universe. it's a thing specifically designed to take a damn good thrashing and the material its made of degrades slower over time than a mcdonalds hamburger.

but we don't "hate" it, we love it, it's fun to thrash. the 'materially' satisfying spiral of energy compression interaction, starting from the point in our brains that it compresses into a conscious thought, right up to the point of "contact", polarizes and becomes a force of absolute evil for the ball.

fortunately, we don't manufacture balls with central nervous systems and the ability to feel pain (yet?). they aren't even 'energy dense' enough to be self-aware.

you only hate what you consider to be a threat to what you love and you only love that which you consider to be understandable/moral, "positive" or "negative". if you take the red pill and expand your perspective to the point of universal time, forces that were once in opposition suddenly become necessary for the whole to exist in the first place.

in short, accept jesus. but not just Him, also accept buddha, and krishna, and allah and all the others, with all the "positive" influences they can have on your perspective. these "people" have been held up as role models for centuries, but instead of modelling our pattern generation on theirs we fight over which one is "right".

it doesn't really matter though, your time on this planet as an individual human consciousness is but a mere 3-dimensional series of snapshots, like a record of a holiday spent out in the country, and eventually you will return to source, where everything is in perfect balance and nothing conceivable by human scale is even happening. just try to have fun while you're here and if you can help others love each other more, we might all just break through to the other side together.



"history doesn't repeat itself, although it does talk in rhymes" -mark twain

"i came here to watch you play, why are you running away?" -the universe

if that tool song it a bit heavy for you, this is the same thing on a different 'scale'.

reply to post by mzungu

I am sorry MZ but some of your statements have no logic. One exaple is when you said...I am not talking about taking this bit of Mass and comparing it to the Density of another Bit of Mass...

This makes no sense. A Bit of Mass...is saying...a quantity of Protons and Neutrons. When a person refers to Mass...they cannot even say a quantity of Matter as the same reference as Matter is comprised of Particles of Mass and Partices of Energy.

Thus you cannot compare or associate DENSITY with Mass as you would have as Air Tight empty large Aircraft Hanger that has been filled with Air and Water Vapor....and you can have a 75 LBS Brick of Gold. Now in comparison...the Gold Brick would have a Greater DENSITY but not a greater MASS than that of the Hanger Filled with Water Vapor. Once this Water Vapor is Condensated and collected...it will weigh much more than 75 LBS. as well as have a greater number of Neutrons and Protons in the total amount of H20 Molecules.

The density of Matter is based on Enviromental Conditions such as Temperature as well as Pressure. If you Heat up H20 to 212 F. or 100 C....it will biol and become Water Vapor...thus the density of it's Total Quantity of Water will be spread out but the individual Molecule will remain H20. If you Freeze H20 it will turn to ICE and it will become crystaline with a greater density than Water Vapor or Water yet as being frozen...it will increase in area as frozen water expands this is also true with beer for anyone who has ever placed a bottle or can of beer in the freezer and forgotten...it expands and breaks the bottle and rips open the can.

But my point is...Density and Mass are not associated...and your statement...comparing a bit of mass with the density of another bit of mass...makes no sense. Mass is the number of Protons and Neutrons period. Density of Matter is variable and Matter contains particles that have Mass as well as Particles of Energy.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


sorry about that, looks like i got tangled up in semantics. what i meant was, when i talk about scale i'm not referring only to an object's physical (detectable) mass and the equations used to calculate it, but that also there is another 'level' of frquency/density that cannot be calculated or visualised the same way, i.e. with particle/charge-based science and visual models.

this model does not disprove anything currently discovered/confirmed by science so far, and does not dispute the validity nor appropriateness of current standards of measurement. it is only suggesting that there is no logical reason why matter has to be seperate from space, and that just as there are different spectrums of light, detectable only within certain scales, so it is with matter. i'm not first to make this claim and i wont be the last, the existence of the thing we call quantum mechanics itself is evidence of this.

The earliest versions of quantum mechanics were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century. At around the same time, the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light (as updated by Einstein) first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as quantum theories of matter and electromagnetic radiation, respectively. Early quantum theory was significantly reformulated in the mid-1920s by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and their collaborators, and the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr became widely accepted. By 1930, quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by the work of Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, with a greater emphasis placed on measurement in quantum mechanics, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality, and philosophical speculation about the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics has since branched out into almost every aspect of 20th century physics and other disciplines, such as quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics, and quantum information science. Much 19th century physics has been re-evaluated as the "classical limit" of quantum mechanics, and its more advanced developments in terms of quantum field theory, string theory, and speculative quantum gravity theories.

this theory does not so much step on the toes of your multiversal belief as accomodate it. if multiple universes exist then they must be contained within another universe, which presumably is part of another set of multiverses within a universe etc. i.e. "turtles all the way down".

Henry David Thoreau, in his journal entry of 4 May 1852,[8] writes:

Men are making speeches… all over the country, but each expresses only the thought, or the want of thought, of the multitude. No man stands on truth. They are merely banded together as usual, one leaning on another and all together on nothing; as the Hindoos made the world rest on an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, and had nothing to put under the tortoise.

Despite these accounts, Hindu myths do not actually contain the myth in the form described. Locke appears to have taken the idea from Samuel Purchas. Some accounts involve the earth supported by a single unsupported tortoise, as Jñanaraja argued: "A vulture, which has only little strength, rests in the sky holding a snake in its beak for a prahara [three hours]. Why can [the deity] in the form of a tortoise, who possesses an inconceivable potency, not hold the Earth in the sky for a kalpa [billions of years]?"